Actually I think I was pointing out to Bernie that his plan for healthcare is both prohibitively expensive and also more socialistic then Obamacare.
Ponderable
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
Actually I think I was pointing out to Bernie that his plan for healthcare is both prohibitively expensive and also more socialistic then Obamacare.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I love comparisons.
Japan:
Obesity - adult prevalence rate:
3.5% (2014)
France:
Obesity - adult prevalence rate:
25.7% (2014)
Canada:
Obesity - adult prevalence rate:
30.1% (2014)
England:
Obesity - adult prevalence rate:
29.8% (2014)
U.S.:
Obesity - adult prevalence rate:
35% (2014)
Wez
DA
Horseshit. A regulated market is key to the success of Capitalism.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Super subsidies too.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Haven't you been reading?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Yes. I'd like to not have to pay for healthcare for my ohana and some other ohana.
Bruddah IZ
DA
People don't want government cheap when it comes to healthcare. Cheap threatens the integrity and quality of the entire system.
Bruddah IZ
DA
V. Objections
The idea that health care and insurance can and should be provided by deregulated markets, and that existing regulations are the main source of our problems, is fairly radical within the current policy debate. Let me deal with a few of the standard objections.
A) The poor
“What about the homeless guy with a heart attack?”
Let’s not confuse the issue with charity. The goal here is to fix health insurance for the vast majority of Americans –people who have jobs, people who buy houses, cars, and cell phones, people who buy insurance for their houses and life insurance for their families.
Yes, we will also need charity care for those who fall through the cracks, the victims of awful disasters, the very poor, and the mentally ill. This will be provided by government and by private charity. It has to be good enough to fulfill the responsibilities of a compassionate society, and just bad enough that few will choose it if they are capable of making choices. I wish it could be better, but that’s the best that is possible. For people who are simply poor, but competent, vouchers to buy health insurance or to refill health savings accounts make plenty of sense.
But supplying decent charity care does not require a vast “middle-class” entitlement, and regulation of health insurance and health care for everyone in the country, any more than providing decent homeless shelters (which we are pretty scandalously bad at) or housing subsidies for the poor (section 8) requires that we apply ACA-style payment and regulation to your and my house, to Holiday Inn or to the Four Seasons. To take care of homeless people with heart attacks, where does it follow that your and my health insurance must cover first-dollar payment for wellness visits and acupuncture? The ACA is hardly a regulation minimally crafted to solve the problems of homeless people with heart attacks!
The idea that health care and insurance can and should be provided by deregulated markets, and that existing regulations are the main source of our problems, is fairly radical within the current policy debate. Let me deal with a few of the standard objections.
A) The poor
“What about the homeless guy with a heart attack?”
Let’s not confuse the issue with charity. The goal here is to fix health insurance for the vast majority of Americans –people who have jobs, people who buy houses, cars, and cell phones, people who buy insurance for their houses and life insurance for their families.
Yes, we will also need charity care for those who fall through the cracks, the victims of awful disasters, the very poor, and the mentally ill. This will be provided by government and by private charity. It has to be good enough to fulfill the responsibilities of a compassionate society, and just bad enough that few will choose it if they are capable of making choices. I wish it could be better, but that’s the best that is possible. For people who are simply poor, but competent, vouchers to buy health insurance or to refill health savings accounts make plenty of sense.
But supplying decent charity care does not require a vast “middle-class” entitlement, and regulation of health insurance and health care for everyone in the country, any more than providing decent homeless shelters (which we are pretty scandalously bad at) or housing subsidies for the poor (section 8) requires that we apply ACA-style payment and regulation to your and my house, to Holiday Inn or to the Four Seasons. To take care of homeless people with heart attacks, where does it follow that your and my health insurance must cover first-dollar payment for wellness visits and acupuncture? The ACA is hardly a regulation minimally crafted to solve the problems of homeless people with heart attacks!
Wez
DA
Are the agencies that Trump has said he'd like to get rid of, an example of "over" regulation?
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
B) The straw man
There is a more general point here, which will appear time and again as I answer criticisms. Critics adduce a hypothetical anecdote in which one person might be ill-served, by a straw-man completely unregulated market, which nobody is advocating, with no charity or other care (which we’ve had for over 800 years27, long before any government involvement at all). They conclude that the anecdote justifies the thousands of pages of the ACA, tens of thousands of pages of subsidiary regulation, and the mass of additional Federal, State, and Local regulation applying to every single person in the country.
How is it that we accept this deeply illogical argument, or that anyone in making it expects it to be taken seriously?
Will not one person fall through the cracks or be ill-served by the highly regulated system? If I find one Canadian grandma denied a hip replacement, or one elderly person who can’t get a doctor to take her as a Medicare patient, why do I not get to conclude that all regulation is hopeless and that only an absolutely free market can function?
Both straw-men are ludicrous, but somehow smart people make the first one, in print, and everyone nods wisely.
There is a more general point here, which will appear time and again as I answer criticisms. Critics adduce a hypothetical anecdote in which one person might be ill-served, by a straw-man completely unregulated market, which nobody is advocating, with no charity or other care (which we’ve had for over 800 years27, long before any government involvement at all). They conclude that the anecdote justifies the thousands of pages of the ACA, tens of thousands of pages of subsidiary regulation, and the mass of additional Federal, State, and Local regulation applying to every single person in the country.
How is it that we accept this deeply illogical argument, or that anyone in making it expects it to be taken seriously?
Will not one person fall through the cracks or be ill-served by the highly regulated system? If I find one Canadian grandma denied a hip replacement, or one elderly person who can’t get a doctor to take her as a Medicare patient, why do I not get to conclude that all regulation is hopeless and that only an absolutely free market can function?
Both straw-men are ludicrous, but somehow smart people make the first one, in print, and everyone nods wisely.
I was talking about insurance and what it's designed for.
I never mentioned the government.
I used to think you were smart.
The best ideas for improving the situation I've heard are HSA's and more insurance competition.
Socialized medicine is not something I personally would choose.
I should be allowed to choose my own personal health care plan, outside of government mandates.
If you want socialized medicine, you should be able to find a group of people willing to share your burden with you.
As a matter of fact, if you do find that half the country wishes to join you in a socialized medicine venture, it will probably bring my cost way down.
Why dont you people put something together for all the socialists, and let the rest of us fend for ourselves.
I'll repeat my main problem with this. Healthcare is one of those things that doesn't work well in a capitalist marketplace.
First off let's keep in in the real world. If your kid were to have cancer, you can't put off that operation. You can't negotiate. You can't go in there and say Ima have to put my kids operation off for six months... unless you give me 10% off. Everyone knows that we take human life as more important then that. And this puts insurers and healthcare providers in the position to take advantage of the government. Regardless of how the guys in the ivory tower say it works... boots on the ground, taxpayers are getting stuck paying inflated costs.
Second let's just take a look around the world. We're paying more, but not really seeing many returns. At least we're not living longer or happier lives then you see in comparable first world country. France, Japan, Germany... they are all getting a comparable care, for percentage points less of their GDP. Especially when compared to what we had before Obamacare where the US was spending 17%+ of it's GDP on healthcare, vs European models where the governments take a hands on approach to pricing. There is no question that in practice, free market heath care has underperformed.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Separate it from Insurance and your place of employment and recalculate.
Sheriff Joe
DA
That's because the ACA is a tax.
You didn't talk about the government? Awww. I sure did.
It would be more exciting if you did it for me...
Sheriff Joe
DA
Maybe if we had to pay for the small stuff the Drs waiting room wouldn't be so full.